Suggestion: lulz button

[J_C]

So, 3/4 of the ratings have been disabled. That's a nice start, now, please continue. We only need a Brofist, and a disagree one.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

The worst thing about these buttons is that they replace actual posting.

 

[evdk]

Damn, guys, you are retarded. We are pointing out the flaws of the system by abusing it.

There is nothing wrong with brofists (although whether they are really necessary is a matter of debate). They are the ONLY necessary acknowlegments because there is simply no point to make a reply that says "I agree with you, well said". All the negative "achievements" are better expressed through arguments by replying to the thread, therefore they are unnecessary.

People think before brofisting because it is a positive acknowledgement; however, given the level of assholery present on the Codex negative acknowledgements will become abused sooner or later. It's always tempting to shout "you suck", even more so when there is a statistic of positive/negative acknowledgements.

I don't agree with the concept that negative acknowledgements are useless. Just like it's superfluous to just post "I agree with you, well said", it's superfluous to post "I don't agree with you, but we're still civil" or to post "I don't agree with you, and you're beyond reasoning with so I'll just consider you a retard and get on with my life" (which is the way it usually goes with HHR, Lyric Suite and other GD superstars).

What's this gonna lead to is ratings fight to the death in /pol/ between the WWDS and the dark pink forces of Multikult.

 

[canakin]

:informative: could be useful too. You would know if that wall of text is an autism fueled trolling attempt or a genuine attempt to help people.

 

[Revenant]

I don't agree with the concept that negative acknowledgements are useless. Just like it's superfluous to just post "I agree with you, well said", it's superfluous to post "I don't agree with you, but we're still civil" or to post "I don't agree with you, and you're beyond reasoning with so I'll just consider you a retard and get on with my life" (which is the way it usually goes with HHR, Lyric Suite and other GD superstars).

You are arguably only right in the last case - i.e., discussing with total retards. "Civil disagreement" must have reasons, thus should be expressed in arguments if the participant of the discussion bothers to acknowledge a statement at all. After arguments fail (when discussing retards and trolls), it is better, in my opinion, simply to ignore the participant of the discussion. Any educated participant will understand this as a "retard" acknowledgement.

What's this gonna lead to is ratings fight to the death in /pol/ between the WWDS and the dark pink forces of Multikult.

And this, this, this.

 

[Infinitron]

I'm not ever going to use anything other than brofists

 

[skuphundaku]

Damn, guys, you are retarded. We are pointing out the flaws of the system by abusing it.

There is nothing wrong with brofists (although whether they are really necessary is a matter of debate). They are the ONLY necessary acknowlegments because there is simply no point to make a reply that says "I agree with you, well said". All the negative "achievements" are better expressed through arguments by replying to the thread, therefore they are unnecessary.

People think before brofisting because it is a positive acknowledgement; however, given the level of assholery present on the Codex negative acknowledgements will become abused sooner or later. It's always tempting to shout "you suck", even more so when there is a statistic of positive/negative acknowledgements.

I don't agree with the concept that negative acknowledgements are useless. Just like it's superfluous to just post "I agree with you, well said", it's superfluous to post "I don't agree with you, but we're still civil" or to post "I don't agree with you, and you're beyond reasoning with so I'll just consider you a retard and get on with my life" (which is the way it usually goes with HHR, Lyric Suite and other GD superstars).

What's this gonna lead to is ratings fight to the death in /pol/ between the WWDS and the dark pink forces of Multikult.

I keep wondering how the fight to the death in /pol/ between the WWDS and the dark pink forces of Multikult still hasn't resulted in the buying of plane tickets and real-life fight club encounters. But there's always tomorrow...:D

 

[evdk]

I keep wondering how the fight to the death in /pol/ between the WWDS and the dark pink forces of Multikult still hasn't resulted in the buying of plane tickets and real-life fight club encounters. But there's always tomorrow...:D

Somebody should make a fighting game of it: Plane Tickets, Bitch: 21st Century Retard Combat

Edit: Or you could pay two homeless guys to fight and record it all on your mobile, same difference

 

[skuphundaku]

I don't agree with the concept that negative acknowledgements are useless. Just like it's superfluous to just post "I agree with you, well said", it's superfluous to post "I don't agree with you, but we're still civil" or to post "I don't agree with you, and you're beyond reasoning with so I'll just consider you a retard and get on with my life" (which is the way it usually goes with HHR, Lyric Suite and other GD superstars).

You are arguably only right in the last case - i.e., discussing with total retards. "Civil disagreement" must have reasons, thus should be expressed in arguments if the participant of the discussion bothers to acknowledge a statement at all. After arguments fail (when discussing retards and trolls), it is better, in my opinion, simply to ignore the participant of the discussion. Any educated participant will understand this as a "retard" acknowledgement.

For example, I used the "disagree" button on your original post and I wrote why I disagree. Maybe someone else is bored, or in a hurry or for whatever other reason also disagrees but doesn't want/can't write a post in which to explain why s/he disagrees with you. In my opinion, that's a good use case for the civil disagree button.

 

[Ion Prothon II]

Where is hitler gone
If you wanna keep this popamole nextgen bullshit rating, at least do it properly.

 

[deus101]

What's this gonna lead to is ratings fight to the death in /pol/ between the WWDS and the dark pink forces of Multikult.

And this, this, this.

Good point.

DU, SHOVEL IN MORE RATINGS *THINGAMAJINKS* FOR GD/POL!

 

[skuphundaku]

I keep wondering how the fight to the death in /pol/ between the WWDS and the dark pink forces of Multikult still hasn't resulted in the buying of plane tickets and real-life fight club encounters. But there's always tomorrow...:D

Somebody should make a fighting game of it: Plane Tickets, Bitch: 21st Century Retard Combat

Edit: Or you could pay two homeless guys to fight and record it all on your mobile, same difference

This is a situation when the ability to select multiple ratings would have been welcome because I would have selected "lulz", on top of the "agree" rating.

 

[evdk]

Where is hitler gone
If you wanna keep this popamole nextgen bullshit rating, at least do it properly.

The JIDF are strong and not even the 'Dex is safe enough from their grasping talons.

 

[Darth Roxor]

 

[Revenant]

For example, I used the "disagree" button on your original post and I wrote why I disagree. Maybe someone else is bored, or in a hurry or for whatever other reason also disagrees but doesn't want/can't write a post in which to explain why s/he disagrees with you. In my opinion, that's a good use case for the civil disagree button.

If you pointed out why you disaggree AND clicked the negative acknowledgement, you were superfluous and thus increased the noise/signal ratio in the forum. Besides, there is still a big issue of negative acknowledgements being open to abuse. You can bombard your personal enemy with "retarded"s and make him look like a joke, but it is impossible to achieve this by using brofists alone.

 

[skuphundaku]

What's this gonna lead to is ratings fight to the death in /pol/ between the WWDS and the dark pink forces of Multikult.

And this, this, this.

Good point.

DU, SHOVEL IN MORE RATINGS *THINGAMAJINKS* FOR GD/POL!

Yeah DU, all the GD subforums should have more, not less buttans.

 

[JarlFrank]

The reduced amount of ratings is even more pointless. What exactly is the diffference between brofist, thank you, and agree? They're not different enough to warrant three different ratings. Why not just remove all of them and only leave the brofist?

 

[deus101]

This discussion is wavering dangerously into newspeak theory.

 

[commie]

So, 3/4 of the ratings have been disabled. That's a nice start, now, please continue. We only need a Brofist, and a disagree one.

I'm with Revenant and I guess The Brazilian Slaughter in that only brofist was ok. It reinforces acknowledgement and respect or appreciation of a post without the need for half a dozen or more one word posts like "cool" or "I agree". It actually helps in the flow of a conversation and apart from the few instances of brofist farming for lulz at the start has worked out well. Negative ratings just tend to be taken up by trolls to tag ideological and gameological enemies without sensible learned rebuttal or debate.

Fuck all that shit off and reset the negative ratings I say.

 

[Ion Prothon II]

Damn, guys, you are retarded. We are pointing out the flaws of the system by abusing it.

There is nothing wrong with brofists (although whether they are really necessary is a matter of debate). They are the ONLY necessary acknowlegments because there is simply no point to make a reply that says "I agree with you, well said". All the negative "achievements" are better expressed through arguments by replying to the thread, therefore they are unnecessary.

Fully agree with this, the new system will lower (cough) the quality of discussions.
Like a real man, I'd rather have a reply like "FUCK YOU RETARD DIE I HATE YOU" than a lame icon with attached number.

 

[skuphundaku]

For example, I used the "disagree" button on your original post and I wrote why I disagree. Maybe someone else is bored, or in a hurry or for whatever other reason also disagrees but doesn't want/can't write a post in which to explain why s/he disagrees with you. In my opinion, that's a good use case for the civil disagree button.

If you pointed out why you disaggree AND clicked the negative acknowledgement, you were superfluous and thus increased the noise/signal ratio in the forum. Besides, there is still a big issue of negative acknowledgements being open to abuse. You can bombard your personal enemy with "retarded"s and make him look like a joke, but it is impossible to achieve this by using brofists alone.

"disagree" is listed a neutral rating, "retarded" is negative.

As for abuse, that cuts both ways, especially when dealing with the spill out coming from GD. Having negative ratings gives you an easy way of calling out retardation.

 

[skuphundaku]

The reduced amount of ratings is even more pointless. What exactly is the diffference between brofist, thank you, and agree? They're not different enough to warrant three different ratings. Why not just remove all of them and only leave the brofist?

brofist: I agree with you so much that we're almost in a bromance
agree: I agree with you, but that doesn't makes us bros
thank you: This is an useful piece of information. Thank you for providing me with this piece of information

 

[Revenant]

"disagree" is listed a neutral rating, "retarded" is negative.

Now think for a minute what exactly is a neutral rating. You acknowledge being neutral to a statement. If this isn't unnecessary information, I don't know what is.

As for abuse, that cuts both ways, especially when dealing with the spill out coming from GD. Having negative ratings gives you an easy way of calling out retardation.

Now that's exactly why negative ratings are that bad. By looking at someone's profile you will be able to judge "hmm, this guy has a lot of negative ratings, I bet he's a dumbfuck that doesn't know shit about RPGs". And it won't matter that these ratings were obtained in political discussion by ideologically motivated opponents.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

Dumbfuck who started this thread should be hanged.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

The reduced amount of ratings is even more pointless. What exactly is the diffference between brofist, thank you, and agree? They're not different enough to warrant three different ratings. Why not just remove all of them and only leave the brofist?

Agree / Disagree can be used for within post voting. (Vote agree if you want to take option A, B if you disagree) or are far more "considered" than the "HIGH-FIVE MAN" nature of the brofist. Agree & Disagree are both neutral.

I agree with you on thanks. That was designed to replace the string of "helpful", "informative" but meh, we have brofist.